RE: my user name[edit]

Is there a rule against having too long a username? I mean I know it doesn't necessarily look "tidy" but surely there are no other problems than that? --Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 22:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no new emails(And I know it works, as I have recieved other Wikiemails). And your name should be shorted, it is way too long. Try something like "Asuka6".Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked about your user name.

It's a noun phrase in which the noun is modified four times. This strikes me as poor prose style. Certainly it's long-winded.
The head of the NP is the odd word "b-tch". I take it that this is to be read as "bitch". If so, why the euphemism?
While we're not certain how "b-tch" is be read, it's a little hard to compress this ponderous name of yours into something short and snappy. (Not wanting to clutter talk pages with unnecessary junk, I'd like to write "As [[User:Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell|bitch]] claimed,....", etc. but I'm not entirely sure that this would be correct. Plus you might conceivably be offended by being referred to as "bitch".)
It's unusually ostentatious: "Look how exciting I am!" But the excitement should come from what you say, not the signature that you append to it.
Actually I get little excitement. Rather, I think of the clichés of game software consumed by teenage males.
The signature above -- [[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All(MTG)|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] -- strikes me as an obscene waste of bytes. Mine is [[User:Hoary|Hoary]], which I think is efficient; as [[User:Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell|Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell]], yours is pretty wasteful.

So make it short and snappy, OK! -- Hoary 09:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Have taken a brief time to familiarise myself with the situation. I was always a Marvel Comics boy myself. It certainly looks like the anon could be DrBat although it's not certain. In the Catwoman case the anon and DrBat both make the same edits and it could be just two separate editors who happen to agree. It's difficult to say for sure that the anon is DrBat evading his block unless using the checkuser function which is enabled for certain trusted administrators. David Gerard has the power and is friendly (I've met him at a London wikimeet).

The 3RR block on DrBat has ended so it does not seem reasonable to ban again for evading the original block (the punishment for this is that the sock is banned and the original ban timer is reset). However I have a suspicion that the Arbitration Committee will be hearing a case involving DrBat soon and so you can include this as evidence. David | Talk 22:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~User 200.162.245.104 blocked for 72 hours.~~ Now please make a new account with a shorter name, and ignore this one. Thank you.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am unblocking him since it seems that there was a 24 hour block, and he didn't use the IP until a few hours after it expired. Didn't look close eough before.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong! I don't know how you got that wrong, but it is wrong!

His next edit with the anon IP was less than an hour after his previous one as DrBat: he WAS editing while banned with that IP

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&action=history

Less than an hour after the ban for 3RR got made User:DrBat started editing with User:200.162.245.104 again!

2005-12-10 18:21:12 DrBat (why?) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&oldid=30840103
2005-12-10 19:13:44 200.162.245.104 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&oldid=30845

(I've replied to this in your other stuff, but.. I'm not the only one who wanted the Bolland image (even including the aforementioned IP address)

The aforementioned IP address also tried reverting my changes in the Catwoman article (changing cover #1 to #46). You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. --DrBat 02:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know the reason why I was banned. I have NEVER EVER vandalized ANY article in Wikipedia. Check my contributons. So now, just because some kids get frustrated about an "ugly pic", they think I'm vandalizing? Poor things. I'm reporting Voice of All to the Wikipedia Administration Board. 200.162.245.104 16:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!?!?[edit]

You make all these unfounded libellous accusations, I keep on replying to and rebutting them, and then you ignore them and post the same libel someplace else! You've been on here for only a few days, and most of your edits have been after me! WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?!?!?!?!?!?!--DrBat 14:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for 48 hours: 24 for serious edit warring after being warned (reported here), 24 for insulting another user, to wit "reverting vandalism by bitter old fart 200.162.245.104 with tiny micropenis and halitosis". Whether or not others should be blocked, you do not need to lower yourself to anyone else's level. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]